2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28463

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
B.S JAGADISH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025|CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025

For offences under the SC/ST Act, the insult or abuse must occur in a place within public view. An FIR arising from a civil dispute, filed after failure to secure interim relief, with no such public view, is an abuse of process and liable to be quashed.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 351(2), 352, 127(2), 190 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of process of law - Criminal intimidation - Place within public view - For an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, it is sine qua non that the insult, intimidation, or abuse be made in "any place within public view". The occurrence must be in a place within the public gaze, where members of the public can witness or hear the utterance. (Paras 5.7, 5.9, 9.1 of the judgment, citing Gunjan alias Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 834).

(B) Quashing of FIR - Civil disputes being given colour of criminality - Abuse of process of law - Where a purely civil dispute, such as an employer-employee matter pending before an Industrial Tribunal, is given the colour of a criminal offence under the SC/ST Act to exert extra-judicial pressure, it amounts to an abuse of the process of law, warranting the quashing of the FIR. (Para 37 of the judgment, citing Gulam Mustafa v. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603).

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 503, 504, 506 - Criminal intimidation - To constitute an offence of criminal intimidation under Section 503/506 IPC, the threat must be with an intent to cause alarm. For an offence under Section 504 IPC, the abusive words must amount to intentional insult likely to provoke a breach of peace. The precise words of abuse must be known to assess if they constitute intentional insult. (Paras 27-31 of the judgment, citing Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951).

(D) Quashing of FIR - Principles - If the contents of the FIR, taken at their face value, do not make out any case against the accused, the FIR is liable to be quashed. (Para 8 of the judgment, citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal).

Facts of the case:
The petitioners (accused Nos.1-5) were employees or directors of a company. The complainant was a long-term employee (18 years) against whom a show cause notice was issued for alleged negligence causing production loss. An enquiry was initiated. The complainant challenged the show cause before an Industrial Tribunal, but was denied an interim order. Immediately thereafter, the complainant registered an FIR alleging that the accused intentionally insulted and intimidated him by taking the name of his caste, and wrongfully confined him.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the complaint was a clear case of arm-twisting to wreck vengeance for the disciplinary proceedings. The court noted the absence of any prior incident of caste-based abuse in 18 years of service. It held that the alleged incident occurred within the premises of the company, a private place, and the FIR did not allege that it was in a place within public view. Thus, the essential ingredient for offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was missing. The other offences under the BNS were also not made out as the facts did not indicate an intent to cause alarm or provoke a breach of peace.

Issues: Whether the FIR and proceedings under the SC/ST Act and BNS could be quashed when the dispute was essentially an employer-employee dispute and the alleged offences lacked the essential ingredient of being committed in a place within public view.

Ratio Decidendi: The proceedings were quashed as the FIR was a gross misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST Act and the BNS 2023, initiated with ulterior motives to exert pressure in a pending civil/industrial dispute. The absence of the essential ingredient of "place within public view" for the SC/ST offences and the lack of essential elements for criminal intimidation under the BNS rendered the criminal proceedings an abuse of the process of law.

Result: The criminal petitions were allowed. Crime No.39/2025, pending before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, qua the petitioners, was quashed.